Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Election law attorneys and election integrity advocates all have their eyes focused on the Thursday Conference of SCOTUS at which the Justices will take up the petition in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock – the Citizens United sequel, seeking review of a Montana state law that restricts the political spending options of corporations.
Matthew Bush at SCOTUSblog provides the relevant pleadings, Petitions to watch | Conference of June 14, 2012:
American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
Docket: 11-1179
Issue(s): Whether Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens United, that a ban on corporate independent political expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment, when the ban applies to state, rather than federal, elections.
Certiorari stage documents:
- Opinion below (Mont. S. Ct.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Free Speech for People et al.
- Amicus brief of Citizens United
- Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Amicus brief of Senator Mitch McConnell
- Amicus brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party
- Amicus brief of Retired Montana Supreme Court Justices
- Amicus brief of United States Representatives Robert Brady et al.
- Amicus brief of United States Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and John McCain
- Amicus brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials et al.
- Amicus brief of the AARP
- Amicus brief of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association et al.
- Amicus brief of the Brennan Center for Justice
- Amicus brief of Walter Dellinger and James Sample
- Amicus brief of New York et al.
- Amicus brief of The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM)
- Amicus brief of Essential Information
- Reply of petitioners
If the Court grants the corporate petitioners' motion to summarily overturn the Montana Supreme Court decision as not in compliance with Citizens United without ordering briefing or oral argument, it will be a clear signal that the Court is committed to one of the worst wrongly-decided decisions in the history of the Court.
The chattering class of Court observers, however, have suggested that some Justices may be ready to reconsider their opinion in Citizens United. Should the Court order this case set for briefing and oral argument on its calendar for next term, this will be a clear signal that at least one of the five Justices responsible for one of the worst wrongly-decided decisions in the history of the Court is ready to reconsider his opinion. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the ill effects of Citizens United through this November's election.
On Monday, two petitions for certiorari were filed challenging the constitutionality of Washington states' "Top Two" primary system. If certiorari is granted by the Court, the constitutionality of the "Top Two" primary system will be decided by the Court in its next term. Yet another reason why Arizona should not foolishly rush to enact a "Top Two" primary system.
Matthew Bush at SCOTUSblog provides the petition summaries. Petitions of the day:
Washington State Democratic Central Committee v. Washington State Grange
Docket: 11-1263
Issue(s): (1) Whether, when the State of Washington asserts that a general disclaimer prevents voter perceptions that candidates are associated with the party that the candidate “prefers,” it bears the burden of showing the risk of forced association is in fact reduced to a constitutionally acceptable level; (2) whether the principles articulated by federal courts evaluating trademark misuse claims should be applied by analogy in evaluating the likelihood of voter confusion under “top two” systems, in which the candidate for office may choose to appear on the ballot in conjunction with a political party’s name without the party’s consent; and (3) if Washington’s partisan top two system as implemented need not pass strict scrutiny, whether it nevertheless fails to qualify as a reasonable and politically neutral regulation that advances an important state interest.
Certiorari stage documents:
Libertarian Party of Washington State v. Washington State Grange
Docket: 11-1266
Issue(s): (1) Whether, by denying minor parties, including the Libertarian Party, virtually all access to the general election ballot, Washington’s Initiative I-872 -- which provides that the top two votegetters for each office advance to the general election -- violates the constitutional rights of minor parties and voters; (2) whether, by denying the Libertarian Party the right to disavow false candidacies or to acknowledge its nominee on the ballot or in any official publication, I-872 – which provides that candidates for office shall be identified on the ballot by their self-designated “party preference” -- violates the associational rights of the Libertarian Party; (3) whether, by denying the Libertarian Party the right to disavow false candidacies or to acknowledge its nominee on the ballot or in any official publication, I-872 denies the Libertarian Party trademark protection guaranteed by federal law; and (4) whether the unauthorized use of the trademarked name “Libertarian Party” by the State on election ballots to indicate “party preference” of unaffiliated candidates constitutes competition with the Libertarian Party in violation of the Lanham Act?
Certiorari stage documents:
We'll be watching to see if SCOTUS grants certiorari.
Recent Comments